Sword Drill: Adjectives for the word of God

Here is a long list of adjectives for the word of God (from A to W).  You supply the references :).

1. Able
2. Engrafted
3. Everlasting
4. Exceeding broad
5. Faithful
6. Good
7. Gracious
8. Great
9. Holy
10. Incorruptible
11. Lively
12. Perfect
13. Powerful
14. Precious
15. Pure
16. Quick
17. Right
18. Righteous
19. Righteous altogether
20. Settled
21. Sharp
22. Sore (hint: Isaiah)
23. Stedfast
24. Strong
25. Sure
26. Sweet
27. Tried
28. True
29. Unsearchable
30. Upright
31. Very pure
32. Wholesome
33. Wonderful (Ps. 119:129)!!!

Hmm...33.  That's how old the incarnate Word was when crucified..

For an excellent comparison of the written word with the incarnate Word (watch your spelling!), please see Danny Doege's In the Beginning Was the Word (Bible Baptist Bookstore). 

Paul the Snake Handler?

I would like to propose that Paul's encounter with a very rude viper on Melita (Acts 28:1-6) was not what Mark was referring to in Mark 16:18, "They shall take up serpents;".  Here are a few reasons why:

1.  Different gospel.  The gospel referred to in Mark 16:15-20 is not the gospel of the grace of God, which Paul is proclaiming in Acts 13-28.  Paul was not saved until Acts 9, so how could Mark 16 be referring to his gospel?  The gospel in Mark 16 is the gospel of the kingdom, which was preached by John (Mt. 3), Christ (Mt. 4-9), the twelve (Mt. 10), and the seventy  (Luke 10) when Christ was on earth, but also after his ascension. Peter knows nothing of the gospel of grace nor of the body of Christ, and his preaching about the cross in Acts 2 is in the context of a nation crucifying its king and needing to repent of that deed to receive their promised kingdom.  When the leaders of Israel reject the re-offer of the kingdom (Acts 3-7), God sets the nation of Israel aside until the rapture (Rom. 9-11) and calls out Paul to begin building the body of Christ through the gospel (1 Cor. 3:10, Eph. 3:6, etc.).  For further study, consult the Berean Bible Society, Dave Reese (website) or Peter Ruckman (Acts commentary).  So you have a different gospel context in Acts 28 than you do in Mark 16, where taking up serpents is mentioned.

2. Different circumstances.  In Mark 16:18, the text says "take up serpents," like picking them up.  Remember Moses taking up a serpent in Ex. 4:1-5?  It didn't take him by surprise and bite him.  He reached forth and grabbed it by the tail ("Resist the devil, and he will flee from you"--Jas. 4:7b).  In Acts 28, Paul is surprised, bitten, and shakes the viper off into the fire.  Not the same circumstances as in Mark 16:18, which seems intentional.  So snake handling is a kingdom sign, since snakes will be handled in the Messianic kingdom (Isaiah 11:8--"put his hand on"...).  What a book we have in our hands, beloved!

3.  Different audience.  Paul's miraculous survival in the Melita incident is not a kingdom sign, but a sign to convert the barbarous, heathen people of Melita, since God also used signs to convert Gentiles during the Acts period (Rom. 15:18-19).  Paul took his gospel "to the Jew first" during the Acts period (Rom. 1:16), but once the Jews had rejected his message in Asia (Acts 13:46), Europe (Acts 18:6), and Rome, the capital of the world (Acts 28:28), their special gospel privileges, including signs, concluded, and the gospel now went to all men, including the Jews, without distinction.  Jewish missions do not have precedence over Gentile missions after Acts 28, since Rom. 1:16 apply to the Acts period, not today.

Things that are different are not the same, and even snakes need to be "rightly divided" :) (2 Tim. 2:15).

The Goodness of God (Reprise)

There is no escape from the goodness of God. God is always doing his children good, no matter how bad things look (Rom. 8:28). The reason why is because is God is absolute goodness; he cannot do anything but what is good (Psalm 119:68). To paraphrase John Piper in The Pleasures of God, even when things look "bad" God is changing things around to do us even more good. Praise his name! Why should anything move us, then, if such a wonderful Being is, in every circumstance of life, doing us good? No matter what anyone does to us or what befalls us, "God meant it unto good" (Gen. 50:20).

(Note: This post preceded my actual "launch" of the blog, but I thought I would retain it.)

Get With It, Elect!

Take a look at Col. 3:12-13 (KJV).  "Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye."

Note Paul's clear command to the elect to do certain things.  Just because one is elect does not mean they will persevere in good works.  According to these verses, the elect may choose not to put on these graces and not to be forbearing and forgiving, but that will not change their election (cf. v. 13 with Col. 2:13--they've been completely forgiven).  The sense is that, since they are elect, they should behave this way, but their election is not based on their behaviour, to begin with or end with.  Compare 1 Thes. 1:3-4.  The Thessalonian saints demonstrated faith, hope, and love because they were elect, but these graces did not make them elect nor keep them elect.  Also, if these graces were absent, that would not indicate that they were not elect, but rather not acting in harmony with their standing.  A good example of this is the Corinthian church, which Paul addresses as sanctified in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:2), but rebukes for walking carnally, "as  men" (1 Cor. 3:1-4).  Their carnal walk did not mean that they were not saved, but that they were not walking as they should (in the Spirit vs. the flesh).

So even if you are elect, you need to "get with it" according to Paul.  Election does not mean you will do right, but rather that you should do right in light of your election.

Let the Word of Christ Dwell Richly in Who?

Per Col. 3:16 in the KJV, the word of Christ should dwell richly in "you."  Contrary to the thought of thousands and perhaps millions, the "thees" and "thous" are actually a help, not a hindrance, to understanding God's word and demonstrate the KJV's superiority over all other versions.  The words "thee/thou/thy/thine" all refer to something singular, while the words "you/your/yours" all refer to something plural.  For example, "Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name (singular)" (Mt. 6:9); and, Phil. 4:7, "...shall keep your hearts and minds (plural)..."

So the word of Christ is to dwell richly in the Colossians as a body, not just as individuals.  True, the word needs to dwell in us individually (cf. Job 22:22; Ps. 119:11 and note the thee's and thou's--individuals!), but that is not the context of Col. 3:16.  The context is corporate, cf. also Col. 3:15, "...in your hearts...in one body."  The Colossians should let the peace of God rule in their hearts, as a body, and hence be at peace with one another.  Likewise they should let the word of Christ dwell in them richly as a body.  How is this done?  The verse supplies the answer:  teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs...The word of Christ can only dwell richly in a church that is forward and faithful to minister it to one another.  Note the psalms (inspired scripture per Lk. 24:44-45), which treat of Christ, hence "the word of Christ" (cf. also Rom. 15:3-4, where Paul links a psalm to Christ).

One would think that such a command is superfluous, but if you've visited a number of churches in your lifetime, you know that there are many where the word of Christ does not dwell in the people "richly in all wisdom," because the congregation doesn't minister it to one another, either publicly or privately.  Many "services" are very short on scripture and long on other things, which is contrary to the spirit of this verse.  When we gather, beloved, let's be sure that we give each other much scripture and spiritual music.  It will make us wiser ("all wisdom") and richer in the Lord.

Antipas and the Nicolaitanes Unmasked

How many times, reading through Revelation 2-3, have you wondered who these folks are? 

The key to correctly interpreting the passages dealing with them (2:6, 13, 15) is realizing that the entire book of Revelation is future, in "the Lord's day" (i.e. the day of the Lord; 1:10).  John is transported forward in time, just as Ezekiel is transported in time (cf. Ezek. 3, 8, etc.), to see all of the events, including those in the first three chapters.  So Rev. 2-3 are not a history of the church in this age, even in type.  There may be some similarities to the course of church history, but the doctrinal application of the chapters is prophetic.  Hence, Antipas is not a historic character, nor are the Nicolaitanes: they are future figures.  Other men are named in scripture before they are even born.  How about Josiah (1 Kings 13)?  How about Cyrus (Is. 44-45)?  How about John the Baptist and our Lord (Luke 1)?  As the events of the great tribulation unfold, Antipas will be martyred for Christ, as will many others (Rev. 6-7, 20), and the identity of the Nicolaitanes will be known.  No need to delve into the history books or Greek dictionaries.  Just believe Rev. 1:10 and stand in awe of God's prophecies.  For more information, please see E.W. Bullinger's Commentary on Revelation (Kregel). 

Of Barbarians and Scythians

The words "Barbarian" and "Scythian" occur together in Col. 3:11, in the context of the body of Christ (3:10).  I would like to explore the senses and significance of these two words (and their relatives) in this post.

First, Barbarian.  This word and its relatives appears in the following passages.

Acts 28:2, "And the barbarous people showed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold."

Rom. 1:14, "I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise."

1 Cor. 14:11, "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

Col 3:11, "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Looking at all of these verses together, it would appear that the word "barbarian" connotes a "foreigner."  In Rom. 1:14, they are non-Greeks (and therefore unwise; 1 Cor. 1:22).  In 1 Cor. 14:11, the sense seems to be a foreigner or stranger. Bear in mind that Greek was the universal language of Paul's day, as English is in ours (Acts 21:37, 39; Eccl. 1:9-10!).  But note in Acts 28:2 that the barbarous people are within the Roman empire, for Melita is ruled by Publius, obviously a Roman due to his Latin name (28:7).  So these "barbarians" are not wild people, since they are subject to Rome; the sense of "barbarous" is the natives of the island, probably non-Greek. 

Finally coming to our text in Col. 3:11, Jews are contrasted with Greeks (non-Jews), who are distinguished from Barbarians (non-Greeks), inside or outside the Roman empire.  But who are the Scythians...?  They are not mentioned anywhere else, except in a passage stressing the comprehensive unity of the body of Christ.  Racial, social (bond nor free), even gender (Gal. 3:28a) barriers in the physical realm do not affect our unity in the Spirit (Gal. 3:28b). So being a Scythian does not exclude you from the unity in Christ.  A brief look at Wikipedia or an encyclopedia sheds light on the non-Roman character of the Scythian.  They were peoples on the outskirts of the empire, in places like southern Russia.  I think that Paul may have included them in this passage on the scope of those in Christ to show that just because someone is outside the Roman empire, i.e. the civilized world, does not mean they can't be in Christ, any more than being a non-Greek barbarian does.  Praise God, he will take the "savage" Scythians into his Son, if they will only believe!